Recreational hunting and DMGD - A new hypothesis

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Snert wrote:

But what if, when FN hunters are hunting, they enjoy it??

 

You alternate between intelligent posts and this kind. At least I get to appreciate you 1/2 the time.

Webgear

Unionist

Hunters were used to cull a herd of deer in Eastern Alberta last year.

I beleive there was cull in northern Ontario in 2007.

 

Unionist

So what?

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Yeah BA the coyotes are getting pretty bad here as well. More kills this year and they're getting more bold.  There's a few farmers that have used dogs in the past, with some success in keeping them away, but it's not working as much anymore.  Also has been more reports of what maybe coydogs in the area which may explain some of it. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

But it is necessary - see my explanation of the cull. Would it be okay to cull as long as nobody enjoyed it?

I said hunters aren't motivated by ecological aims. How about dealing with that point. And I've never heard of hunters being given marching orders as to where to hunt, how many they must kill, what dates to go out. They aren't hired to cull.

Quote:
What difference does it make that we're not First Nations?

What is wrong with READING MY POSTS??? I said they were sovereign, and it wasn't my place to preach to them any more than (say) Greenlanders. Sovereignty. I preach to my own people, and I respect the traditions and hereditary rights of others.

I guess the next question there is:  Are you my people?  Have you ever even been here?  If not, don't tell me what my local culture can, is or can't be.

My experience is that ecological aims are interwoven in hunting.  We never wanted to take more than we should because that would damage the ecology.  In fact, as I've pointed out several times, it's the experience of and connection to the natural world that is the larger part of why the people I know hunt, and they are keenly interested in the preservation of natural spaces for wildlife - even those where hunting is prohibited.  Is this not ecological motivation in some respect?

And they are, actually, given regions within which to hunt on the licenses granted.  There are zones with applicable licenses.  You also can't just go and buy a license, you apply for one.  In some zones, you are subject to a lottery system.  So you won't necessarily be granted one.  There's also an allotted time period.  And you pay for the privelege.  Rather than hire for the cull, the government raises money on it.  It's necessary, the controls you point out are missing are there, and there's the added benefit of money going back into conservation.

So the main sticking point seems to be the whole pleasure aspect, as you see it.  Is that about right?

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

So the main sticking point seems to be the whole pleasure aspect, as you see it.  Is that about right?

No, it's killing animals when you don't have to.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

But if somebody doesn't, they starve - they die slow.  How is that better?

ETA:  How about some of my other questions?  Any answers?

Webgear

 

There is no so what, I was just informing you that hunters have been used to cull deer.

I was referring to post 97.

Have a nice day.

I am going hunting this afternoon.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

 I do, however, personally hope that people will come to see that killing of animals when it isn't really necessary should become a thing of the past.

I think that's a fair statement if applied to killing and eating meat in general.  Eating meat isn't necessary. People can survive without it.  Ethically though I don't see a whole lot of difference in eating meat you get from the store or eating it from an animal that one killed directly except of course with the former one just lets someone else do the killing part.

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

So the main sticking point seems to be the whole pleasure aspect, as you see it.  Is that about right?

No, it's killing animals when you don't have to.

 

So it is okay if someone does it for you, even if you enjoy the steak and the meal,  but not if you do it yourself?  Where I come from that is called illogical.

No one needs to eat meat, or fish, whether farmed or hunted -however we have evolved to do so and the raising of meat is a necessary component of growing food sustainably.  So again your logic seems to be -okay if I do it- not okay if you do it.  Any way you cut it that is a supremely arrogant outlook.

Bookish Agrarian

Hey Eliza -

Our farm dog is getting to the point she is afraid to go off the porch very far at night.  Smart girl.

The chickens they killed were in a fenced area - only let out at dawn about 25 metres or so from the house and barn.  They jumped the fence and killed dozens and dozens of chickens in something like 20 minutes.

These were definitly coyotees as I chased after them with my truck through the fields.  Big, bold, cocky killers.  They are also wiping out the re-introduced wild turkey population in our area.

At the same time we have a Chicken Hawk swoop in from time to time.  She only takes one chicken.  As much as I don't like the loss I figure I am doing something to help the general ecosystem by letting her take the occassional chicken with our blessing.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

BA, I hadn't considered the turkeys. I wonder if that's why I haven't seen as many around this year.  Fortunately I don't seem to have a problem with coyotes and my chickens though it is surprising considering I see them crossing the back of the property.  Lost a couple to a raccoon that got into the coop one night though.  Doing my best to use every deterent possible to keep them away, so far so good, hopefully it'll continue working. 

A neighbor said he was out haying and a pack came right up within 50ft of the moving tractor, in the middle of the day!

Bookish Agrarian

Yah, I've had them come right up to the truck sitting in the field while I was only a row or two away on the tractor. 

On one of the farms we work there were a whole whack of nests with brooding turkeys on them.  I came back a few days later and all the eggs were eaten (possibly later by raccoons), but worse all the brooding turkeys were also laying there dead.  Could only have been Coyotees - nothing else is big enough in our area.

And what will be worse is that the natural cycle will mean most of their prey species will decline (rabbits and ground hogs already have around our place as sitings are very rare) and then they will get hungrier and bolder and who knows what will happen.

oldgoat

B A, unionist may be attempting to draw a fine distinction here, and not succeeding.  (we're not always big on the fine distinctions around here)  I really don't think though, that he has "insisted that hunters are nothing more than bloodthirsty thrill killers".  Putting words in peoples mouths is contrary to the principles of intelligent debate, and I'm pretty sure babble policy.  Please don't in the future.  I say in the future because I'm closing for length.

For the record, I hunted a bit when I lived up north. Don't now out of personal disinterest in the activity, but I'm fine with those who do and have always welcomed a gift of game meat.  I also have no problem getting why those involved in agriculture need to shoot things as part of the job.

Actually, maybe I'll leave it open for a bit.  Don't like to enter a debate and then make mine the last word.

 

ETA: unionist, about your post to snert.  First, I'd give him at least 6.5 out of 10 which may seem like a quibble, but I use it as an occasion to remark on your (I'm sure unconcious) habit of questioning the intelligence of those who disagree with you.  This is also a poor debating technique and probably contrary to policy.

 

Unionist

ElizaQ wrote:
Ethically though I don't see a whole lot of difference in eating meat you get from the store or eating it from an animal that one killed directly except of course with the former one just lets someone else do the killing part.

Hi ElizaQ,

I never said I had an ethical issue with eating an animal that one killed directly. Did I?

 

Unionist

oldgoat wrote:

 

ETA: unionist, about your post to snert.  First, I'd give him at least 6.5 out of 10 which may seem like a quibble, but I use it as an occasion to remark on your (I'm sure unconcious) habit of questioning the intelligence of those who disagree with you.  This is also a poor debating technique and probably contrary to policy.

 

What's your problem, friend? I was kidding about his intelligence. His post was very clever and provocative, so instead of being abusive, I tried a mild comment. I have explained several times that I don't preach my hunting morals to FN because they are sovereign people. He replies, "But what if they enjoy it?" It was a jibe on his part, and I jibed back. I'm really sorry you didn't understand the exchange. I'll try to be more explicit next time.

I haven't attacked anyone in this thread, and I'm doing my best to ignore some of the more guttural noises attacking me. When it becomes hard to ignore, I still won't attack anyone. I do appreciate your attempt to provide balance in moderation by critiquing my comment in equal measure as someone else's outrageous one. Thanks.

 

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Unionist wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:
Ethically though I don't see a whole lot of difference in eating meat you get from the store or eating it from an animal that one killed directly except of course with the former one just lets someone else do the killing part.

Hi ElizaQ,

I never said I had an ethical issue with eating an animal that one killed directly. Did I?

 

Well you didn't but that wasn't what I was commenting on.  You said, "I do, however, personally hope that people will come to see that killing of animals when it isn't really necessary should become a thing of the past." You also said, "No, it's killing animals when you don't have to."

So I extrapolated from those two comments that the your key point was about necessity. You even bolded the actual word 

My comment was about necessity which is why I said. "I think it's a fair comment IF you're talking about meat in general." It's not a necesscity. We all can survive without it. No one has to kill animals to live and eat.    Maybe I shouldn't have made a comment talking about the ethics but asked for further clarfication on what you actually mean then.  If you're talking 'necessity' (your bold) then what is the difference between killing an animal that you eat in the wild vs eating an animal that someone else killed for you?

If you're talking as someone who doesn't eat meat for whatever reason I get those comments. They make perfect sense. If you're talking as someone who does eat it, for whatever reason, then they don't make as much sense in terms of talking about the necessity of killing animals.  Is it just due to where they're located or something or the difference between animals that are raised on purpose for human consumption vs those that are free?

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

What's your problem, friend? I was kidding about his intelligence. His post was very clever and provocative, so instead of being abusive, I tried a mild comment. I have explained several times that I don't preach my hunting morals to FN because they are sovereign people. He replies, "But what if they enjoy it?" It was a jibe on his part, and I jibed back. I'm really sorry you didn't understand the exchange. I'll try to be more explicit next time.

I haven't attacked anyone in this thread, and I'm doing my best to ignore some of the more guttural noises attacking me. When it becomes hard to ignore, I still won't attack anyone. I do appreciate your attempt to provide balance in moderation by critiquing my comment in equal measure as someone else's outrageous one. Thanks.

 

 

 

Ah still with the passive aggressive attacks.  You are like McDonald's the food is always crappy - but at least you can count on it being consistent. 

 

I simply can't believe the breath-taking arrogance to essentailly say - "I don't agree with the moderators so I will just keep doing what I feel like."  And then you go on to question the moderators understanding of your profounditry- just like you personally attacked a number of other posters questioning their intellegance and level of understanding because they don't agree with you.   And it is all left undealt with time and again by moderators.

 

No wonder babble has gone so far down hill

 

I for one will respect the call by the moderator and just leave the thread and send any comments directly

 

 

Unionist

ElizaQ wrote:
If you're talking 'necessity' (your bold) then what is the difference between killing an animal that you eat in the wild vs eating an animal that someone else killed for you?

There is no difference. I get the feeling I'm repeating myself a whole lot. I never said there was a difference. I'm not talking about eating animals. I'm talking about whether hunting primarily for recreation is not perhaps a pastime that we should look at as being unnecessarily inhumane.

Quote:
If you're talking as someone who doesn't eat meat for whatever reason I get those comments.

I eat meat.

Quote:
If you're talking as someone who does eat it, for whatever reason, then they don't make as much sense in terms of talking about the necessity of killing animals.  Is it just due to where they're located or something or the difference between animals that are raised on purpose for human consumption vs those that are free?

No - it's about whether the killing of animals is primarily to feed people (which one day we may as a society decide is wrong, but I'm not there yet) - or whether the killing of animals is primarily part of a recreational social good time romp in the woods whatever - which I am suggesting might be something that perhaps people could look at and say, "Y'know, we can have similar fun without actually killing those animals".

 

 

Fidel

I think we're a bit late. No more Grizzlies in trigger happy America. And great herds of Buffalo were cleansed a long time ago. It was a most diabolical conspiracy of the US Military and elitists to starve out the Indians a long time ago. Conspiracies are them.

And today there are Innuit reliant on great white hunters paying big money to cull the Polar bear population - the ones that are still able to find the odd ice cube to rest on.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Well, Unionist, I think several posters have already addressed this. I've agreed that I can and do have similar fun without shooting at anything, for example.

One could also argue that a clean kill in open, natural surroundings is inherently much more humane than sending an animal to a feedlot or abattoir.  It's also less humane to allow them to starve, and a cost-effective way to handle the cull.  So no, I'd prefer to agree to disagree on the humane/inhumane point.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Long thread. Insert obvious joke here.

Pages

Topic locked